They do…and they appear to have just started reducing their greenhouse gas emissions as their wind and solar buildout is happening fast enough to displace fossil fuel use. They’re also the main exporter of those technologies, so a push for decarbonization will both cut their own emissions and those of the rest of the world.
It’s a real indictment of the American Republicans that they chose to fight renewables every step of the way — the US could have been in an incredibly strong leadership position had they chosen to support them instead.
If you count how pollution is consumed (where the product that created the pollution are consumed) instead of where is produced, the United States and Europe are still way on the top polluters.
When you adjust for trade it still would be China, USA and then EU in terms of total emissions. In terms of per capita the US leads, but by now I am not sure if China or the EU has higher emissions. Europe is obviously worse though, as Russia is a massive polluter.
Not trying to antagonize, I just thought these graphs were relevant.
It should be noted that much of the “rest of the world’s” emissions serve imperial powers and that is not reflected in these graphs. This makes it difficult to determine who is entirely responsible for what but the graphs are still useful
They do, but it doesn’t make the US less responsible for climate. If anything, the US seems to be right behind in a good number of rankings, so not great at all. The article itself mentions it too.
The article here highlights a different problem though. As they wrote, China may be a top polluter, but they’re investing in green and clean energy sectors and is already known to be fully dominating EVs and solar. It’s in their interest to do so not just for profits, but also for energy independence, which would reduce a leverage the world has over it, it would be easier for them to further their global agenda. The US, having to fight Big Oil all the way, is dragging its feet, and by electing Trump, they’re essentially saying “fuck the climate and green tech”, so it’s essentially letting China take the whole stage, if they’re not already hogging it.
If Trump does pull out of all green initiatives, which we all know he’s very likely to do, China will take the opportunity to have free reign at growing its soft power over all the world through its dominance in green energy and tech, displacing the current, already weakening soft power held by the US. And China absolutely knows how to wield their powers; we’ve seen this in their handling of various projects they’ve invested in many countries across the world: South America, South Africa, South East Asia (yeah yeah, “Global South”, sure).
Really wish this point was hammered harder, it’s so unbelievably stupid, the way we’re deliberately handing this opportunity off to anyone else. The US became economically dominant in large part by being well positioned to exploit and develop huge emerging tech scenes / markets, and then doing that by funding R&D, projects, etc.
We’re again positioned to be absolutely dominant in one of the most important, or maybe the most important, tech booms of humanity so far. “Conservatives” should love the idea of getting viable green technologies first, it’s THE way to keep the global order similar to how it’s been.
Not that I personally want things to stay like that per se, but regardless better green tech sooner is generally better for the whole planet. It’s insane to watch these idiots just focus on the near term and literally give away the keys to power for the next century.
I would also expect an I crease in carbon tariffs worldwide. They are allowable under wto rules and with the USA implementing tariffs, other countries will seek ways to do the same while protecting themselves. The USA not following two rules would be a boon to China and Russia to ignore patent laws. It will be carrot and stick.
Not on a per person basis. China also does the most to combat climate change, purely by virtue of its population. It also does the most research, has the most homed people, has the most fed people, delivers the most babies etc etc.
When dealing with different countries with wildly different populations, it’s the amount per person and change per person that counts the most.
Unfortunately, by dividing by country, it becomes a game theory problem in that the actions you do don’t have an effect. It’s collective actions that work. As this becomes more imperative, the cost of those not acting will not be borne by countries that are and they will be punished in trade tariffs.
Out of every country China pollutes the most. Btw fuck tRump
They do…and they appear to have just started reducing their greenhouse gas emissions as their wind and solar buildout is happening fast enough to displace fossil fuel use. They’re also the main exporter of those technologies, so a push for decarbonization will both cut their own emissions and those of the rest of the world.
It’s a real indictment of the American Republicans that they chose to fight renewables every step of the way — the US could have been in an incredibly strong leadership position had they chosen to support them instead.
If you count how pollution is consumed (where the product that created the pollution are consumed) instead of where is produced, the United States and Europe are still way on the top polluters.
When you adjust for trade it still would be China, USA and then EU in terms of total emissions. In terms of per capita the US leads, but by now I am not sure if China or the EU has higher emissions. Europe is obviously worse though, as Russia is a massive polluter.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-emissions?tab=table&time=earliest..2021
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=chart&country=CHN~OWID_EU27
Can we stop counting Russia as part of Europe? The European continent is very arbitrary anyway.
As others have mentioned, this doesn’t actually change much. Something near 90% of Chinese emissions are to support Chinese consumption
per 👏 capita 👏 is 👏 always 👏 what 👏 matters
Do I upvote because it’s true, or do I downvote because of clap spaces. I’m torn.
Not trying to antagonize, I just thought these graphs were relevant.
It should be noted that much of the “rest of the world’s” emissions serve imperial powers and that is not reflected in these graphs. This makes it difficult to determine who is entirely responsible for what but the graphs are still useful
They do, but it doesn’t make the US less responsible for climate. If anything, the US seems to be right behind in a good number of rankings, so not great at all. The article itself mentions it too.
The article here highlights a different problem though. As they wrote, China may be a top polluter, but they’re investing in green and clean energy sectors and is already known to be fully dominating EVs and solar. It’s in their interest to do so not just for profits, but also for energy independence, which would reduce a leverage the world has over it, it would be easier for them to further their global agenda. The US, having to fight Big Oil all the way, is dragging its feet, and by electing Trump, they’re essentially saying “fuck the climate and green tech”, so it’s essentially letting China take the whole stage, if they’re not already hogging it.
If Trump does pull out of all green initiatives, which we all know he’s very likely to do, China will take the opportunity to have free reign at growing its soft power over all the world through its dominance in green energy and tech, displacing the current, already weakening soft power held by the US. And China absolutely knows how to wield their powers; we’ve seen this in their handling of various projects they’ve invested in many countries across the world: South America, South Africa, South East Asia (yeah yeah, “Global South”, sure).
Really wish this point was hammered harder, it’s so unbelievably stupid, the way we’re deliberately handing this opportunity off to anyone else. The US became economically dominant in large part by being well positioned to exploit and develop huge emerging tech scenes / markets, and then doing that by funding R&D, projects, etc.
We’re again positioned to be absolutely dominant in one of the most important, or maybe the most important, tech booms of humanity so far. “Conservatives” should love the idea of getting viable green technologies first, it’s THE way to keep the global order similar to how it’s been.
Not that I personally want things to stay like that per se, but regardless better green tech sooner is generally better for the whole planet. It’s insane to watch these idiots just focus on the near term and literally give away the keys to power for the next century.
I would also expect an I crease in carbon tariffs worldwide. They are allowable under wto rules and with the USA implementing tariffs, other countries will seek ways to do the same while protecting themselves. The USA not following two rules would be a boon to China and Russia to ignore patent laws. It will be carrot and stick.
Not on a per person basis. China also does the most to combat climate change, purely by virtue of its population. It also does the most research, has the most homed people, has the most fed people, delivers the most babies etc etc.
When dealing with different countries with wildly different populations, it’s the amount per person and change per person that counts the most.
Unfortunately, by dividing by country, it becomes a game theory problem in that the actions you do don’t have an effect. It’s collective actions that work. As this becomes more imperative, the cost of those not acting will not be borne by countries that are and they will be punished in trade tariffs.